Cyriac Joseph ( 1 ) THE petitioner s two sons namely Mr. Satpal Verma and Mr. Surinder studied in Dev Samaj Modem School, Nehru Nagar, New Delhi and appeared for class X examination conducted by the CBSE in March, 1997. According to the petitioner Mr. Satpal Verma secured 40% marks and Mr. Surender Verma secured 45% marks. Both of them sought admission in Class XI in the said school but they were refused admission without assigning any reason. Hence, the petitioner represented to respondent No. 1, Director of Education, to direct respondent No. 2, the Principal of Dev Samaj Modern School, to give admission to the petitioner s sons. The said representation was allowed and the delay in seeking admission was condoned by the Director. Earlier the petitioner had also made a representation to the Education Officer Zone-24 Defence Colony and the said representation was forwarded to respondent No. 2 with a request that the case of Mr. Surender Verma who had secured 45% aggregate marks may be considered sympathetically and as per rules. As per Annexure B letter dated 28th July, 1997, of the Secretary to Minister for Heath and Education, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, the petitioner was sent by him to respondent No. 2 with a request to consider the case of admission of his sons sympathetically. However, respondent No. 2 did not give admission to the two sons of the petitioner in Class XI for the session 1997-98. Hence the petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for a direction to the respondents admission to the petitioner s two sons in class XI in the school of respondent No. 2 in the 1997-98 session. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner the denial of admission to his sons is in violation of their fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is further contended that the denial of admission is against Annexure D, press release of the Minister, Ministry of Education, Government of National Capital Territory stating that a student who has passed class X cannot be denied admission in the same school irrespective of the marks obtained by him. It is alleged that respondent No. 2 failed to obey the directions given by the higher authorities. It is alleged that respondent No. 2 failed to obey the directions given by the higher authorities. ( 3 ) RESPONDENT No. 2 has filed a counter affidavit stating that Dev Samaj Modern School is run by Dev Samaj, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and that the said school is an unaided recognised school. Being an unaided recognised school, the Head of the School is entitled to regulate admissions either on the basis of admission test or on the basis of the result in a particular class or school. Respondent No. 2 relies on Rule 145 of the Delhi School Education Rules which read thus: "145. Admission to recognised unaided schools. (1) the Head of every recognised unaided school shall regulate admissions to a recognised unaided school or to any class thereof either on the basis of admission test or on the basis of the result in a particular class or school. (2 ). Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (1), the provisions of this Chapter shall, so far as may be, apply to admission to a recognised unaided school as they apply to admissions to an aided school. " It is contended that in exercise of the power conferred under Rule 145, the School has framed its admission policy, according to which the cut off percentage for students seeking admission in Commerce Stream is 60% in aggregate and in Mathematics and English. The cut off percentage for students seeking admission in Science stream is 65% in aggregate and [a Mathematics and Science. The said admission policy has been published in the Students Diary. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that as far as Xlth and XIIth classes are concerned: the school offers courses only in Science Stream and Commerce Stream. The School does not have the third stream i. e. Humanities. Therefore, the students who passed class X examination can get admission only in one of the two available streams. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that both Mr. Satpal Verma and Mr. Surender Verma wanted admission in the commerce stream in the school. They were not eligible for admission to the Commerce stream under the rules of the school as they did not have the prescribed cut off marks. Hence they were not given admission. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that both Mr. Satpal Verma and Mr. Surender Verma wanted admission in the commerce stream in the school. They were not eligible for admission to the Commerce stream under the rules of the school as they did not have the prescribed cut off marks. Hence they were not given admission. ( 4 ) IT is further stated that the Director of Education had issued a memorandum dated 2nd July, 1997 laying down the criteria for admission in Class XI for the year 1997-98. A copy of the said memorandum dated 22nd July, 1997 has been produced as Annexure R 2. As per the said memorandum, for admission in XI class in the Humanities Stream a student must have been declared passed by the CBSE at the Secondary School Examination, for admission in Class XI in the Commerce Stream a student declared passed at the Secondary School Examination must have secured 40% marks in aggregate and for admission in Class XI in the Science Stream, a student declared passed at Secondary School Examination must have secured at least 50% marks in aggregate or in Science and Mathematics 85 in aggregate having at least 60 marks in Mathematics. Concession of 5 marks will be admissible to the following categories of students: 1)S. C. /s. T. 2) Handicapped 3) Students having first, second and third position in National Games 4) EFA volunteer instructors who have obtained certificate from a competent As per Annexure R 2 memorandum those students who were placed in the compartment in Class X and have passed the Compartment Examination of class X will be allowed to pursue their studies in class XI subject to fulfilment of admission criteria of Class XI. It is pointed in the counter affidavit that even as per the criteria laid down by the Director of Education in Annexure R-2 memorandum, Mr. Satpal Verma is not eligible for admission in the Commerce Stream since he has not secured 40% marks in aggregate. He secured only 190 marks out of 500 marks i. e. 38%. . It is pointed in the counter affidavit that even as per the criteria laid down by the Director of Education in Annexure R-2 memorandum, Mr. Satpal Verma is not eligible for admission in the Commerce Stream since he has not secured 40% marks in aggregate. He secured only 190 marks out of 500 marks i. e. 38%. . ( 5 ) IN the counter affidavit reference is made to Rule 137 of the Delhi School Education Rules according to which admissions shall ordinarily be made once a year and shall not be made after 31 st day of August of the year except where the Director being satisfied that four special reasons like migration of a student from a school outside Delhi, the delay in seeking admission has been unavoidable and was due to circumstances beyond the control of the parent or the guardian of the student, directs the admission of such student after that date. It is categorically averred in the counter affidavit that neither Mr. Satpal Verma nor Mr. Surender Verma nor the petitioner had never approached the school for seeking admission before 31st August, 1997. It is also stated that the academic year had started in May 1997 and the admissions in the relevant classes were completed by the end of July. It is specifically stated in the counter affidavit that there was no order of the Director of Education condoning the delay in seeking admission in the case of the sons of the petitioner. ( 6 ) RESPONDENT No. 2 has denied the statement of the petitioner that Mr. Satpal Verma had secured 40% marks in Class X examination. According to respondent No. 2, Mr. Satpal Verma secured only 190 marks out of 500 marks i. e. 38% marks. The above statement of respondent No. 2 is found to be correct from the marks Statement produced as Annexure A. Respondent No. 2 is not aware whether the petitioner had approached the Director of Education for condonation of the delay for admission. However, it is categorically stated in the counter affidavit that the Director of Education had not given any letter condoning the delay for admission in the case of the sons of the petitioner. However, it is categorically stated in the counter affidavit that the Director of Education had not given any letter condoning the delay for admission in the case of the sons of the petitioner. In this context, it may be observed that the petitioner has not produced any material to show that the Director of Education had condoned the delay for admission in the case of the sons of the petitioner. Respondent No. 2. has also raised a contention that the Director of Education does not have any right or jurisdiction to prescribe or lay down criteria for admission in respect of unaided recognised schools and that unaided recognised schools are entitled to frame their own admission policy and criteria. ( 7 ) WHEN the respondents appeared in response to the show cause notice on 11. 12. 97, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted before this Court that the school had offered to admit Mr. Surenderverma who had secured 45% marks but the petitioner wanted both the sons to be admitted. Then the learned counsel for the petitioner requested that Mr. Surender Vermamay be admitted to the school. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 had no objection to the admission of Mr. Surender Verma and hence this Court by the order dated 11th December, 1997 directed Mr. Surender Verma to report to the school for admission on 12th December, 1997. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the parties that. pursuant to this Court s order dated 11th December, 1997, Mr. Surender Verma has been admitted in Class XI. Hence as far as the admission of Mr. Surender Verma is concerned, this writ petition has become infructuous. ( 8 ) AS far as the claim of Mr. Satpal Verma for admission is concerned, it is clear that even as per the criteria laid down by the Director of Education in Annexure R2 memorandum, Mr. Satpal Verma is not eligible for admission in class XI either in the Commerce Stream or in the Science Stream. As already stated there is no Humanities Stream available in the school. Learned counsel for the petitioner has no case that the admission criteria laid down by the Director of Education in Annexure R 2 memorandum are not applicable. The petitioner has not challenged the said memorandum dated 2nd July, 1997 or the admission criteria laid down therein. As already stated there is no Humanities Stream available in the school. Learned counsel for the petitioner has no case that the admission criteria laid down by the Director of Education in Annexure R 2 memorandum are not applicable. The petitioner has not challenged the said memorandum dated 2nd July, 1997 or the admission criteria laid down therein. Hence it has to be held that the petitioner s sons Mr. Satpal Verma was not eligible for admission in Class XI in the school of second respondent. It may also be pointed out that the definite case of respondent No. 2 is that the petitioner or his sons had not approached the school for admission before 31. 8. 97. The petitioner has not placed on record sufficient material to enable the court to arrive at the conclusion that the petitioner or his sons had approached the school for admission prior to 31. 8. 97. There is also no material to show that the Director of Education had exercised his power under Rule 137 of the Delhi School Education Rules to condone the delay for seeking admission in the case of the petitioner s sons. Hence there is force in the contention of respondent No. 2 that the school was not bound to admit the petitioner s sons after 31. 8. 97. It is also necessary to note that Mr. Satpal Verma has been seeking admission for the academic session 1997-98 and that the academic session 1997-98 has almost come to the end. In these circumstances I hold that Mr. Satpal Verma was not eligible or entitled for admission in class XI in the school of respondent No. 2 and that respondent No. 2 was justified in denying admission to Mr. Satpal Verma. The denial of admission to Mr. Satpal Verma was not in violation of his. fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India because he has no fundamental right to get admission in the school even when he does not satisfy the requirements of eligibility for admission. The denial of admission to Mr. Satpal Verma is also not in violation of any provisions in the Delhi School Education Act and the Delhi School Education Rules or any directions issued by the Educational Authorities. ( 9 ) SINCE Mr. Surender Verma has already been admitted and since Mr. The denial of admission to Mr. Satpal Verma is also not in violation of any provisions in the Delhi School Education Act and the Delhi School Education Rules or any directions issued by the Educational Authorities. ( 9 ) SINCE Mr. Surender Verma has already been admitted and since Mr. Satpal Verma has been found not eligible for admission even as per the criteria for admission laid down by the Director of Education in Annexure R 2 memorandum, it is not necessary in this case to consider whether the Director of Education is competent to prescribe the admission criteria in respect of unaided recognised schools and whether the said schools are competent and entitled to frame their own admission policy and,criteria. ( 10 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in The Principal Cambridge School and another Vs. Ms. Payal Gupta and Others REFERRED TO in JT 1995 (6) S. C. 101. In my view the said judgment is not relevant to the facts of this case since the petitioner s son Mr. Satpal Verma is found to be ineligible for admission in Class XI in the school of respondent No. 2 even as per the admission criteria laid down by the Director of Education in Annexure R 2 memorandum which has not been challenged by the petitioner and since the petitioner or his son had not approached the school seeking admission prior to 31. 8. 97. ( 11 ) HENCE the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in respect of his son Mr. Satpal Verma and the writ petition will stand dismissed in respect of Mr. Satpal Verma. The writ petition has already become infructuous in respect of Mr. Surender Verma as he has already been given admission in class XI in the school of respondent No. 2. The writ petition is disposed of as above.